Naval Singh vs The State of Haryana and another

S.C. Mital and S.S. Kang, JJ.—This writ petition has to be allowed because it is fully covered by the ratio of a recent decision of a Division Beach of this Court in Man Singh and others v. State of Punjab ILR 1980 (2) P & H 103.

The petitioner''s land is situated in the revenue estate of village Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad Respondent No. 1, the State of Haryana, issued a notification dated September 8, 1972, u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ''the Act'') seeking to acquire land measuring 51 Acres 1 Kanal and 6 Marlas situated within the Revenue Estate of Ballabhgarh, for the purpose of the establishment of a Mandi Township at Ballabhgarh. This notification was published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated 19th September, 1972 (a copy of which is attached as Annexure P/1). A similar notice for the same purpose for the land in village Ranhera was issued. The lands of the two villages are adjacent. The lands of the petitioners are covered by notification, Exhibit P/1, A notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on January 9, 1973, in respect of land measuring 10 Acres and 4 Kanals in Ballabhgarh, which is situated on the eastern side of the Delhi-Mathura Road. The lands of the petitioner are situated on the western side. The Land Acquisition Collector announced award of the above mentioned lands on March 6. 1972 and took possession thereof on the same day. Thereafter the plan of the Mandi was prepared and the sites and shops in the Mandi were sold by auction and a Mandi was set up there. Another notification u/s 6, dated July 26, 1975, whereby the land measuring 12 Acres, 5 Kanals and 18 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of Ballabhgarh was acquired for setting up of the Mandi Township. The lands of village Ranhera were included in both these notifications bat we are not concerned with that village in this petition. Still another notification u/s 6 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette of July 28, 1975, whereby 27 Acres 5 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land situated in Ballabhgarh were sought to be acquired. A copy of this notification is attached as Annexure P-6. The petitioners received a notice dated August 5, 1 981 from the Collector purporting to have been issued u/s 9 of the Act requiring him to appear before him on August 21, 1981 and to submit his case for compensation of land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas belonging to the petitioner. Prior to the receipt of this notice, the petitioner did not know about the proceedings.

The principal argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the authorities did not take any step to complete the acquisition of the petitioner''s land and for the payment of its compensation because the notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Act was issued with the object of pegging down the price of land to be acquired in future to the date on which notification Exhibit P-1 u/s 4 of the Act was published and there was no possible need of the land to be acquired. It is well known fact that there has been phenominal rise in the prices of the land during these years This submission of the Learned Counsel is indeed supported by the following observations in Man Singh''s case (supra): --

The unconscionable non-action of the respondent authorities for the last about seven years in not taking any step to complete the acquisition and payment of the compensation to the petitioners is only indicative of the fact that the impugned notifications, Annexure P-1 and P-3 were in all probability issued with the only object of pegging down the price of the land to be acquired in future to the date on which the notification Annexure P-1 was published, that is, December 10, 1973 and that there was no possible need of the land to be acquired. We, therefore, find that the petitioners are well justified in assailing these acquisition proceedings on the ground that the above said notifications were issue not for bona fide purpose of acquisition but for the collateral purpose, that is, to prevent them from claiming the benefit of rise in prices of the land sought to be acquired. Hence these notifications, Annexures P-1 and P 3, deserve to be quashed for this reason alone.

In this case also the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on September 19, 1972 and the proceedings for determining compensation have been started in the year 1981 i.e. after a period of about nine years. The petitioner will now get compensation at the rate which was prevalent in the year 1972. This cannot be permitted in view of the decision in Man Singh''s case (supra)

Mr. P.S. Duhan, Deputy Advocate-General, Haryana, for the State, has argued that there is no limitation prescribed for determining the compensation and giving award. He has relied upon a decision of the Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Transport Corporation Vs. Valji Mulji Soneji and Others, . However, the facts in that case were entirely different. In that case, the notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on October 10, 1952, and the following action was taken by the State Government expeditiously within less than a year by issuing a notification u/s 6 on August 14, 1953. The land owners filed a suit challenging the notifications. They lost in different courts but continued pursuing their remedies and the matter was ultimately decided in the Supreme Court in 1969 whereafter action was taken for determining the compensation. So, it was the landowner who had delayed the proceedings and the State was not at fault. The ratio of this case will not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

We, consequently, allow this writ petition with costs and quash the notification u/s 4 of the Act (Annexure P-1), notification u/s 6 of the Act (Annexure P-6) and the notice u/s 9 (Annexure P-7) so far as they relate to the lands of the petitioner only. It may be made clear that this judgment will have no effect on the proceedings taken in relation to the lands of others Counsel fee Rs. 300/-.